Standing Committee B

[Mr. Bill O'Brien in the Chair]

Energy Bill [Lords]

Stephen Timms: On a point of order, Mr. O'Brien. I would like to respond to a point made by the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) before the break. He suggested that there is an inconsistency between what I said on Thursday and what I have said today. I am pleased to reassure him that there is no inconsistency between the two points.
 I made it clear last week that the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority will be able to run only nuclear power stations pending decommissioning. I made that point again today, and as I said, that will be the Magnox situation. The NDA will also operate thermal oxide reprocessing plant—THORP—and the Sellafield mixed oxide—MOX—plant for operational reasons, but those are not nuclear-generating stations, so there is no inconsistency between the points that I made this morning and those I made last week. If the hon. Gentleman looks again, he will, I hope, be satisfied on that point.

Bill O'Brien: We will deal with that as we make progress through the amendments.

Norman Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 79, in
clause 6, page 4, line 16, leave out 'treating,'.

Bill O'Brien: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 80, in
clause 6, page 4, line 18, leave out 'treatment,'. 
No. 81, in 
clause 6, page 4, line 27, leave out 'treatment,'. 
No. 82, in 
clause 7, page 5, line 43, leave out 'treatment,'. 
No. 83, in 
clause 40, page 35, line 7, leave out 'treatment,'.

Norman Baker: Welcome back to our proceedings, Mr. O'Brien.
 I am grateful to the Minister for having reflected on my comments over lunch, but I shall now deal with another problem that concerns me greatly: the use of the word ''treating''. That word has particular connotations for politicians, but in this case I am talking about a different context.

Laurence Robertson: Speak for yourself.

Norman Baker: I certainly was not.
 Clause 40(1) contains the Bill's definition of the word ''treat'', which,
''in relation to any matter or substance, includes processing and reprocessing (including any use as a material in a process for the manufacture of nuclear fuel)''. 
Clause 6 effectively means that the NDA will be empowered to carry on the reprocessing of fuel. 
 We already know that the Government do not believe that they should intervene in that. In response to a written question from me, the Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment said: 
 ''Decisions about whether to reprocess spent nuclear fuel depend on the commercial judgment of the operator concerned.''—[Official Report, 23 February 2004; Vol. 418, c. 146W.] 
We know therefore that the Government have no policy to prevent the further generation of nuclear waste—reprocessing generates further nuclear waste—and that that is a matter simply for the industry. We could have a situation in which the Government are happy for the industry to generate increasing amounts of nuclear waste while the NDA runs around trying to stop that, although, as clause 6(1)(e) gives the NDA the power to treat, it may participate in the reprocessing. 
 Reprocessing is a particularly useless activity, which is more expensive than alternative spent-fuel management options. It magnifies the UK's nuclear waste management programmes, causes increased discharges of radioactivity to the environment and increases the UK's stockpile of weapons-usable plutonium. Plutonium is relevant to the question of treatment, so will the Minister say whether the Government regard it as a liability to be disposed of or a fuel still to be used? That is important, considering what the NDA will be doing. 
 We know that plutonium will separate from used fuel, and as I have mentioned, clauses 40 and 6 mean that the NDA may be involved in that process. However, such plutonium has no use any more. As the Trade and Industry Committee said, 
''plutonium separated from used fuel is not only no longer required by any end-user, but is increasingly regarded as a positively dangerous waste product. Because of its physical properties and its potential attraction to terrorists or others seeking material for nuclear weapons, it has to be heavily shielded and securely guarded. The future disposal of the UK's current stockpile of separated plutonium, estimated to rise to at least 100 tonnes by 2010 if reprocessing continues, is currently under consideration.'' 
Every tonne of Magnox fuel reprocessed, which is what the NDA can be involved with under the Bill, produces 0.02 cu m of high-level waste, 1.2 cu m of intermediate-level waste, and 3 cu m of low-level waste. A tonne of spent advanced gas-cooled reactor fuel, when reprocessed, produces a much higher quantity of high-level waste—0.08 cu m—and the same volumes of intermediate and low-level waste. According to BNFL, the stockpile of spent Magnox fuel in March 2003 was 7,100 tonnes. If the reactors continue to operate, as the Minister wants, in accordance with BNFL's closure timetable, the amount of spent Magnox fuel that will require reprocessing before 2012 will rise to 9,400 tonnes. 
 Why is the NDA being given the power to continue reprocessing? The Government recognise the environmental liability of spent nuclear fuel and waste 
 to the tune of £40 billion, and have set up a special body to deal with it. Therefore, why do they not stop reprocessing rather than continuing to allow it to accumulate further waste, which the NDA will presumably have to deal with?

Richard Page: I must confess that when I read this series of amendments I thought they were probing. I am sure that you, Mr. O'Brien, will remember when probing amendments were discussed in Committee at great length, which enabled us to discourse on matters that were not always relevant. Timetabling means that we are more constrained and have to deal with the case in hand.
 Having listened to the hon. Member for Lewes, I wonder whether the amendments are genuine, or whether, in the words of John McEnroe, ''You cannot be serious.'' I regard them as wrecking to the purpose and aim of the agency, which the Committee signed up to before lunch as a good thing. What the hon. Gentleman said was amazing. He could have achieved his intended aims with a more direct amendment rather than through the circuitous route that he has taken. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) confessed to standing for the Workington constituency in a general election and kindly referred to the fact that I used to be the Member for Workington, until the generous electorate there allowed me more time to spend with my family. Like her, I visited the plant at Sellafield and became acquainted with the intricacies of the nuclear process and its problems. 
 I point out to the hon. Member for Lewes the fact that the operations of BNFL, including THORP, MOX and other commercial plant facilities, require an integrated process. We cannot hook out a word, as he has suggested, and expect everything to continue as normal—the whole process would fall apart. One cannot technically separate the natural decommissioning of the plant from the storage and disposal facilities by removing the word ''treatment''. 
 The hon. Gentleman's point does not stand up because, having searched through the amendments, I cannot see the corollary. Why, for example, did he not table a similar amendment to clause 19(1)(b) under which the NDA will have responsibility for 
''the operation of a facility for treating . . . hazardous material''? 
His amendment is technically defective. Perhaps, at a later stage, he will produce an amendment to remove the word ''treatment''. I apologise to the Minister, who might have to answer on that at a later stage, and to the Committee, for referring to it now. 
 The hon. Gentleman has tabled a wrecking amendment that would severely damage the work of the NDA. In doing so, he has offered no alternative on how the word ''treatment'' would flow through in respect of hazardous material. The amendment is anti-nuclear and designed to stop the NDA in its tracks. Although I seldom pray in aid the support of the Minister, I shall do so on this occasion in the hope that 
 he denounces the amendment as unworkable. I hope that the Committee as a whole, with the obvious exception of the hon. Gentleman, soundly defeats the amendment.

Michael Weir: I want to make a brief point. The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) is dismissive of the amendments, but the definition of ''treatment'' includes
''processing and reprocessing (including any use as a material in a process for manufacture of nuclear fuel)''. 
That is the area that concerns me. Running through the Bill like a thread is an assumption, or at least a possibility, that the NDA will become a nuclear processor in its own right, although the Minister has denied that. However, this is yet another example of where that possibility exists, because the NDA is given the power to treat 
''in a process for the manufacture of nuclear fuel''. 
I am therefore inclined to support the amendment, unless the Minister can persuade me otherwise.

Nigel Griffiths: Welcome to the Chair, Mr. O'Brien. Let the record show that, probably for the first time in my years in Parliament, I agree with the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire.
 I shall answer the questions put by the hon. Member for Lewes directly. The amendment would prevent the NDA from taking responsibility for the operation of any nuclear facilities involved in the treatment of hazardous material. To remove the treatment of hazardous material from its functions would mean that it could not take responsibility for THORP, the SMP or Springfields, and would make the Sellafield site unmanageable in regulatory terms. 
 I realise that the hon. Gentleman's party is opposed to the continued operation of reprocessing at Sellafield. I also listened to what the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) said. Our policy on THORP and the SMP was set out clearly in the 2002 White Paper, ''Managing the Nuclear Legacy—a Strategy for Action''. There are existing contracts to fulfil, and decisions on the continued operation of the plant beyond those dates needs to be considered by this Committee and by Parliament. 
 We are committed to making decisions that are in the best interests of clean-up. In this context, the continued operation can be justified to the extent that it generates additional income or reduces the future costs of storage and the disposal of radioactive waste. Preventing the NDA from taking responsibility for the treatment facilities would not answer the question of what should happen to those facilities. The hon. Member for Lewes has asked me some questions. Let him tell the Committee how those facilities would be treated under Liberal Democrat policy.

Norman Baker: Will the Minister tell me whether he thinks the objectives of the NDA are helped by allowing it to manufacture nuclear fuel?

Nigel Griffiths: We are giving the NDA overall responsibility for the treatment. As the hon. Gentleman knows well, the complex treatment of nuclear facilities involves looking at the whole supply chain. We need an agency in which Parliament and the public have confidence. That is what we are presenting to the Committee in the clause. His proposal would greatly complicate the operation of the main Sellafield site to the extent that safety and security would be compromised.
 The regulators strongly advise the Government that the integrity of the operation of the Sellafield site must be preserved in the interests of effective regulation. The facilities at Sellafield are so intertwined that it is all but impossible to separate THORP and the SMP from the rest of the site as the amendment seeks. As the site operator has to have unified control of the site, it makes sense for the NDA to have full responsibility for securing the operation and the clean-up of the site. 
 By giving the NDA responsibility for securing the operation of THORP and the SMP, we have a mechanism to ensure that decisions on the continued operation of these facilities are made on the basis that they maximise the net benefit to the clean-up of the site. The timing of ceasing operations can be made to fit with the overall strategy for cleaning up the site. Any income derived from the continued operation of these facilities can be put back into funding the clean-up. I urge the Committee to resist the amendment. 
 Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
 On resuming—

Norman Baker: Belatedly, I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths), to the Committee. The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services has retired hurt after earlier exchanges.
 The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire said that my amendment is designed to stop the NDA in its tracks. It is not. It is designed to prevent the NDA from taking a role in reprocessing. Members of the Committee will have formed the opinion, perhaps from what the energy Minister said this morning and in earlier sittings, that the role of the NDA is to decommission nuclear installations, help to clean up the environment and deal with the nuclear legacy. That naive view is being undermined as we go through the Bill. We now know that the NDA will generate electricity from Magnox reactors and create nuclear fuel, under clause 40. That is a long way from the process of the NDA—

Nigel Griffiths: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that for the NDA to be effective and to advise on and master these issues, it should consider the entire
 production and life cycle, not limit its remit to the end-product decommissioning issue, as the amendment seeks? The difference between our parties is that we want the NDA to be able to look at the life cycle through THORP, the SMP and Springfields in particular, so that the problems that arose because of the failure to consider the whole life cycle are resolved by the Bill. Thus, we will ensure that the NDA can look at the whole life cycle.

Norman Baker: The Minister used the phrase ''look at'' several times. I am happy for the NDA to look at the whole life cycle but that is a different matter from taking responsibility for the generation of nuclear fuel, and it compromises his colleague's shibboleths of transparency and independence. In fact, it blurs the lines that I mentioned earlier.
 The Minister gave the game away when he twice mentioned ''the income derived''; that is what the Bill is about. The nuclear industry has landed the Treasury with a gigantic bill for decommissioning and the Treasury wants some of its money back. It can do that by flogging the Magnoxes to death and trying to get some income from them, and reprocessing and getting some income from that. The Bill will generate waste rather than dealing with it, in order to get some income.

Michael Weir: As there is no date for completion, could not the NDA become a generator in its own right for a considerable period?

Norman Baker: That is right. We only have the estimate of when the Magnox reactors will cease operating. That date has been extended on a number of occasions and could be extended again. This is about money. To get its money back, the Treasury is trying to derive as much income as possible from the nuclear industry. However, that process will generate more waste and is completely contrary to the stated position and the stated objective of the NDA. I referred on Second Reading to the Minister's ''Consultation Paper on Proposals for Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste Substitution''. That means more waste. It means that at the same as the Government propose to get rid of waste through the NDA, they will create more waste, and they are doing so because they will derive income from the process.
 I am afraid that NDA is beginning to stand for nuclear development authority rather than Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. However, I am happy to let the Minister dig himself into a couple of holes. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Laurence Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 50, in
clause 6, page 4, line 30, at end insert—
 '(3A) Such a direction must not be given by the Secretary of State before he has formally consulted the person in control of the site in question, and has laid a copy of that proposed direction before Parliament.'.

Bill O'Brien: With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 51, in
clause 6, page 5, line 4, after 'every', insert 'proposed'. 
 No. 52, in 
clause 6, page 5, line 5, at end insert 
 'at least a month before making such a direction, except in the case where the Minister considers the making of that direction urgent.'.

Laurence Robertson: I am not sure that I can quite match the excitement generated by the hon. Member for Lewes with his amendments; in fact, I am not sure that I am going to try.
 In a way, it is a pity that we cannot discuss amendments Nos. 59 and 60 now, because they are the background to what I am getting at in these amendments. Amendments Nos. 59 and 60, if I may refer to them briefly, describe the position of British Energy, the relevance of which will become clear as I proceed. In speaking to amendments Nos. 50, 51 and 52, I am trying to show due respect to Parliament, in the sense that although the number of designations will be small, their importance will be large. 
 The Electricity (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2003 repealed sections 72 and 74 of the Electricity Act 1989, and gives the Minister the power to repeal to any extent any of the other provisions of part 2 of the 1989 Act by statutory instrument. As hon. Members will remember, the 2003 Act was introduced to rescue British Energy and, although small, was extremely wide-ranging. The Minister may want to correct me, but it seemed to give the Government the power to bring British Energy under state control, if that were desirable. The importance of that is that the NDA can take over only installations or sites that are publicly owned. 
 If the Government can take over parts of British Energy, that would become an organisation or an installation that could be taken over by the NDA. I think that I have interpreted the position correctly. Given that the Minister has such wide-ranging powers under the 2003 Act, and because any transfers will be very large in importance, it is not unreasonable to ask for the proposals to be laid before Parliament a month before they are enacted. That is not much to ask. 
 We have had an interesting debate on the future of Sellafield and, in particular, THORP and on the NDA's possible role in respect of reprocessing. In a parliamentary answer on 15 March, the Minister said: 
 ''As far as spent nuclear fuel is concerned, THORP's order book amounts to some £12 billion.''—[Official Report, 15 March 2004; Vol. 419, c. 70W.] 
That figure will probably alarm the Liberal Democrats greatly, but the point is that it is a massive sum and means an awful lot of work for the people in that area. Making transfers of that amount is very significant. It is not asking too much for the proposal to designate such a site to be put before Parliament a month before the transfer comes into effect, following the Minister's consultation with the site in question, which is also part of my amendment. 
 There is another aspect to this, which I mentioned on Second Reading. I do not know whether the Minister has had a chance to consider it, although I am sure that his officials will be up to speed on it, so no doubt he will be. If, for example, British Energy, or a 
 part of it, were taken over by the Government for the purposes of the NDA—to clean up or decommission—would that represent an infringement of European Union rules on unfair state aid? I am not saying that it would; I do not know and I am genuinely asking the question from ignorance, but it should certainly be considered. The relevance of that to the amendments is that if that occurs, it is only right and fair that Parliament should be warned about it in advance—[Interruption.] I am getting rather worried that the Liberal Democrat spokesman is agreeing with me, but I am sure that I can cope with that. For the reasons that I have given, I commend the amendments.

Nigel Griffiths: To the surprise of many colleagues, the amendments appear to impose administrative burdens on the process of giving the NDA designated responsibilities. I should have thought that because 10,000 additional burdens were placed through regulations in the 10 years up to 1997, there would be no need to add unnecessary ones such as this. I am the first to believe that Parliament must be kept properly informed about processes, but are the Opposition arguing that it may be necessary to delay a designation, except in urgent cases, for a month or so that Parliament can reflect on it?
 Designations are technical documents that specify precisely and in sufficiently robust legal terms what the NDA is being given responsibility for. Once the NDA has been given the designated responsibility for a new site, even if the designation has not yet come into force, it is required to update its strategy to take account of its new responsibilities. It will need to consult on a revision in accordance with the provisions of schedule 2, secure the approval of Ministers and publish the new strategy so that hon. Members, all interested parties and the general public will have the opportunity to view and comment on the new strategy. Its annual report will reflect any additional designated responsibilities. The report will be published and laid before Parliament, but the level of detail sought by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) in moving the amendments does not merit Parliament's consideration. 
 The additional requirement that the Secretary of State most formally consult the site operators is also unnecessary. Private sector operators must already consent to designations of their sites to the NDA. Public sector operators—BNFL and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority—as site licensees of the nuclear legacy sites, will initially become the responsibility of the NDA as a matter of course. They will be heavily involved in the drawing up of designations relevant to them. I understand that work has already started on that. A statutory requirement to consult is unnecessary, and I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Laurence Robertson: I am not entirely convinced by the Under-Secretary about how unnecessary the amendments are. I mentioned, for example, that THORP has an order book of £12 billion, just for reprocessing spent fuel. I am not aware of any transfer
 of that size going through without some reference to Parliament. It seems extraordinary to want to avoid that. The Under-Secretary said that it would delay it for up to a month. Is he suggesting that designation will be made and acted upon within a month? That seems a very short time scale.

Norman Baker: Did not the hon. Gentleman's amendment, which I support, also have the proviso that when it was urgent other action should be taken? Even that excuse does not hold.

Laurence Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is right. In another clause—I cannot quote it offhand, as I do not have the benefit of the Under-Secretary's civil servants—a designation can be made a long time ahead. What I am proposing is not extraordinary. With the proviso that I can speak briefly to amendments Nos. 59 and 60, which are linked to this proposal, I shall divide the Committee on this important matter.
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 12.

Question accordingly negatived.

Norman Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 78, in
clause 6, page 4, line 37, leave out from 'itself' to end of line 38.

Bill O'Brien: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 59, in 
clause 6, page 4, line 38, at end insert 
 'including the person in control of any installation, site or facility owned by British Energy'. 
Amendment No. 86, in 
clause 8, page 6, line 28, leave out from 'itself' to end of line 29. 
Amendment No. 60, in 
clause 8, page 6, line 29, at end insert 
 'including the person in control of any installation, site or facility owned by British Energy'.

Norman Baker: In the last set of amendments, the hon. Member for Tewkesbury sought extra accountability and clarity. It is interesting that no matter where one stands on the nuclear issue, there is a common purpose in transparency and knowing exactly what is going on. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) and I tabled the amendments. Clause 6(4) states:
 ''A direction must not give the NDA a responsibility . . . '',
and mentions some tightly defined groups: 
''(a) a Crown appointee; 
 (b) the UKAEA; 
 (c) a publicly owned company; 
 (d) the NDA itself; or''— 
it is something of a catch-all— 
''(e) a person who has consented to the giving of the direction''. 
That would appear to be anyone else on the planet, although the Under-Secretary will say that that is flippant. It seems unnecessary to include (e) in the terms in which the clause is written. If the Under-Secretary means British Energy, he should be upfront and say so. 
 In the debate on the previous group of amendments, the hon. Member for Tewkesbury rightly referred to the position of British Energy. Before we go further, one of the Ministers should make a statement on where that matter rests in respect of the European Commission. The Under-Secretary will know that the Bill will in theory allow the NDA to take on British Energy's liabilities, at an estimated cost of £3.3 billion over the next 10 years. Under the restructuring plan, the Government intend to underwrite the decommissioning and clean-up costs. 
 Officials from the DTI have admitted that the Bill is worded to cover British Energy's liabilities; it would also allow future private nuclear companies to be bailed out in respect of their waste and decommissioning liabilities. We are not, as hon. Members envisaged at an early stage, drawing a line under the issue, dealing with historical liabilities and trying to move on with a clean balance sheet. We are doing worse than that in a sense. 
 I agree that we should have the NDA, but we are allowing future private sector operators to offload their responsibilities on to the taxpayer. Is that the Government's intention? If the Under-Secretary wants to tell me that I have read the Bill wrong I will happily hear his explanation, but that is how I read it. It is contrary to the spirit of the Bill to allow that to happen. It is inappropriate for the Government to support a private sector company in that way. I ask the Under-Secretary to comment expressly on the complaint about the Bill that has been laid with the European Commission. Have his officials advised him that it is legal to go ahead in this form? If it is not legal my amendment should commend itself to the Committee.

Nigel Griffiths: This group of amendments relates to the ability of the Secretary of State to give the NDA responsibility for securing the clean-up of private sector sites. We have made this provision in the Bill in recognition of the Government's ultimate responsibility for ensuring nuclear safety and security in the UK. We cannot rule out the possibility that the Government might need to step in to ensure the safe, secure clean-up of a private sector nuclear site. If that were necessary the NDA would of course be best placed, with its skills and expertise, to manage any clean-up operations. Clauses 6(4)(e) and 8(5)(e) allow for that, as long as the Secretary of State secures the consent of the private sector operator concerned.
 Amendments Nos. 78 and 86 would simply remove that option, which, for the reasons I have just outlined, would be extremely irresponsible. The hon. Member for Lewes asks whether he has read the Bill wrong. The answer is yes, yes, yes, he has. He asks whether the Bill applies to British Energy. The answer again is yes, yes, yes, it does. His amendments Nos. 59 and 86 seek to emphasise that clauses 6(4)(e) and 8(5)(e) would apply to British Energy sites. That is entirely unnecessary. As drafted these provisions would apply to the ''person with control'' of an installation, site or facility, as defined in clause 39. That clearly includes a British Energy site.

Laurence Robertson: Before he concludes on that point, will he make a reference to the position with regard to the European Union's unfair state aid rules?

Nigel Griffiths: The state aid rules would apply in this case. If the Government wanted to take responsibility for additional liabilities a further clearance process by the Commission may be required. I hope that clarifies the point and I hope that my explanation will persuade the hon. Member for Lewes to withdraw his amendment.

Norman Baker: I will have to read Hansard. That was an extraordinary contribution from the Under-Secretary; frank, but slightly unwise. He has effectively said that the private sector will receive a blank cheque from the Government. The Government are prepared to pick up the bill through the NDA for private sector sites. All this business about the nuclear industry washing its own face and becoming self-sufficient is clearly codswallop. The taxpayer will pay yesterday, today and tomorrow for the nuclear legacy.

Richard Page: When the hon. Gentleman talks about the taxpayer paying for the nuclear legacy, he should remember the weapons programme that lasted for many a year. The civilian nuclear industry should not be included with that legacy.

Norman Baker: I was thinking of British Energy in particular. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the electricity industry was told that privatisation would be a fresh start for the nuclear industry, would deal with all the liabilities, that the state would get all the Magnox stations and those that were going to be profitable were to be hived off into the private sector. Now, dare I say it, a Labour Government are coming forward with a blank cheque to clear up those sites.

Laurence Robertson: I fear that the situation might be rather worse than the hon. Gentleman describes, given the Under-Secretary's honest reply to my intervention. We do not know whether they can clear the sites or not. Would not it have been better to clarify that before publishing the Bill?

Norman Baker: I could not agree with more with the hon. Gentleman. It is intolerable that the Committee is being asked today to give a power to write a blank cheque for the future of a private company, possibly in
 contravention of European Union rules. That is what we are being asked to agree to this afternoon. The Under-Secretary and his colleagues must reflect on their position on the Bill.
 This morning, I had a BNFL advert that talked about a brand new start; it was rubbing its hands at the opportunities that now exist, and I am sure that British Energy is doing exactly the same. This is a wonderful start for those companies. They can offload all their present and future liabilities on to the taxpayer, and can continue to do what they should not be doing, in my view, which is to generate more radioactive waste for the taxpayer to deal with. 
 The Under-Secretary said that there was a guarantee that the consent of the private sector must be secured, but the private sector will be falling over itself to give consent to the Under-Secretary in those circumstances. He also said that I may have misread the Bill; I may have done so, but in his contribution, he confirmed the understanding that I had mentioned earlier. The hon. Member for Angus has a later amendment, which seeks to delete from clause 12(2) the ability to help British Energy in that way. 
 I hope that when we reach that point, the Under-Secretary will have reflected on this debate, and will be able to give a more definitive statement on the European position. The idea that we can put into law something that may be contrary to European requirements is, frankly, astonishing. The Under-Secretary has some serious questions to answer. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Norman Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 77, in
clause 6, page 5, line 20, leave out 'against the interests of' and insert
'constitutes a material risk to'.

Bill O'Brien: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 110, in 
clause 12, page 10, line 47, leave out from 'information' to 'national' and insert 
 'the publication of which would constitute a material risk to'. 
Amendment No. 111, in 
clause 12, page 11, line 1, at end add 
 'the publication of which would constitute a material risk to national security'. 
Amendment No. 126, in 
schedule 2, page 161, line 34, leave out 
 'be against the interests of' 
 and insert 
 'constitute a material risk to'. 
This is rather less controversial, although still important. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove tabled these amendments with a view to getting the balance right between proper regard being paid to national security and the issue of the public at large knowing what is taking place in their name. The test set under the Bill for the release of information is slightly too widely drawn. My amendment would be a more satisfactory replacement. The term 
''against the interests of national security''
can be interpreted rather widely, whereas the replacement wording 
''constitutes a material risk to'' 
national security is fairer and tighter. It does not prevent anything being withheld that is a genuine threat to national security, but recognises the principles enshrined in the Government's freedom of information legislation, which is that information should be released unless there is a good reason not to do so. We tabled the amendment to endorse the Government's approach to freedom of information, so I hope that they will support it.

Richard Page: I would describe the amendment as a true probing amendment in the traditional sense. It warms the cockles of my heart to see such an old-fashioned amendment; it makes me feel at home in this new age.
 I shall resist the temptation to discuss the intricacies of the amendment in detail. The amendment is unsound, but interesting. The Under-Secretary must accurately define what the Government mean by national security. In practice, the amendment is similar to medieval philosophers trying to decide how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. No Secretary of State will publish detailed information that could affect national security, especially after 9/11. It is exceedingly doubtful whether anyone can define what constitutes a less than material risk to national security. The Under-Secretary is one of the more open Ministers that I have met. He prayed in aid some of my comments earlier, which makes me warm to him in a way that I would not normally do. However, in these days of open government, it would be helpful to know where the lines of publication lay. 
 The background of the interpretation of national security could be obvious, simple and unworthy of query. However, I remind the Committee of a recent incident in which a young lady at Cheltenham breached the Official Secrets Act, published information that was a clear contravention of that Act and yet was not prosecuted. Mr. O'Brien, you would rightly pull me up if I went into the details of that case, so I shall not do so in deference to your position as Chairman. However, when the Government will not take action when there is a clear breach of national security, I must ask what the phrase 
''against the interests of national security'' 
means. 
 We have a new Labour Government with new policies but, as far I am concerned, national security is still national security. I have signed the Official Secrets Act as, I would suggest, has the Under-Secretary, but it seems that people are no longer bound by it and cannot be prosecuted. He and I are working as one on the Bill at the moment. Will he tell us exactly what national security is, and where it will be influenced and implemented?

Robert Key: Will my hon. Friend tell the Committee why he signed the Official Secrets Act?

Bill O'Brien: Order. I would certainly suggest that we do not go into that.

Richard Page: Shades of the past, when a colleague would intervene to help an hon. Friend who was drying up by giving him a little line and keeping him running on a new thought. I will not say why I signed the Official Secrets Act, except to say that I am a loyal citizen of this country; I wish it to prosper and would not want information to be used by enemies of the state to its detriment.
 I hope that the Under-Secretary will define what he means by national security. To the uninitiated it may seem like I have put my question in a less than serious manner, but I am definitely serious. What goes on to the record from this Committee is used in legal actions and court cases to show what the Government mean. The hon. Member for Lewes has produced one or two wrecking amendments in relation to the NDA, to which I objected. I assume that this amendment is a true probing amendment and that he wishes the Under-Secretary to define what he means by national security. I should also like to know what is meant by national security, and I look forward to the Under-Secretary's comments.

Nigel Griffiths: The amendments would reduce the Secretary of State's ability to withhold sensitive information by applying a different burden of proof from that required under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
 Let me give an example of what could be relevant to national security. We all know that nuclear sites can contain security-sensitive material and information and in the current environment, there obviously must be some discretion and control over the use of that information, in the public interest of avoiding it being used to potentially damaging effect and ensuring that it comes under some scrutiny. As I have said, even the Freedom of Information Act does not set out the test that the amendment proposes. For the purpose of safeguarding national security, it allows Ministers to determine what information should be exempt to safeguard national security. 
 I should have thought that, now more than at any other time in the past, there is not a strong case for introducing a materiality test that would reduce the Secretary of State's discretion to exclude information to be published on grounds of national security. I know that the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) stepped in to try to help fill the vacuum in his hon. Friend's head, but on this occasion, he was not successful. I recommend that the amendment be withdrawn.

Norman Baker: The Under-Secretary spoke about the threat. Yes, there is a threat, and we all have to recognise that. He talked about discretion, and yes, Ministers should have discretion on such matters. He also talked about control, and yes, there should be control. None of those points is queried or threatened by the amendment.
 The Under-Secretary's substantive point was to identify, rightly, that I am proposing to apply a different threshold from the one in the Bill. That would 
 be the only change; the amendment would not remove the discretion or control and would still allow Ministers, if there is a material risk, to keep information secret or deal with it as they think appropriate. None of that would change. The amendment tests simply whether the hurdle is the right height. Ministers will always err on the side of caution, particularly in times such as these, and we would expect them to do nothing other than that. 
 The Under-Secretary's portrayal of the amendment was somewhat unfair. I also believe that as there are public safety and environmental issues with nuclear waste and power stations, it is legitimate to ask him whether we are striking the right balance. I will not press the amendment to a Division, but I ask him to recognise that it was a reasonable point to make. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. O'Brien.
 I have several points to make. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire referred to the nuclear capacity of Ministry of Defence installations and said that he would not want the new authority to have responsibility for them. Paragraph 59 of the helpful explanatory notes informs us: 
 ''Clause 6 is framed in general terms so that, in addition to the BNFL and UKAEA sites described in the White Paper, the Government could in future give the NDA responsibility for the decommissioning and cleaning up of Ministry of Defence sites''. 
The Under-Secretary's constituency encompasses Morningside, so he will be some distance from a nuclear power station, whether civil or MOD. However, will he tell us how likely is the scenario that was rightly identified by my hon. Friend? We may wish to return to that point.

Richard Page: My hon. Friend is right in asking that question of the Under-Secretary; it is important that that should be put on the record.
 The point that I was making was that there is a huge nuclear legacy through the weapons programme and that some people desire to amalgamate that into the civilian situation. It is important to ensure that the civil liabilities are not burdened with the requirements that have to be dealt with from the weapons programme. Many people try to roll together the civil and weapons nuclear liabilities, which I do not believe to be fair.

Anne McIntosh: The Committee will have some sympathy with the points made by my hon. Friend. I hope that the Under-Secretary will take account of them in his response.
 The Government consulted over a four-month period from the end of November 2003 to February of this year on the decommissioning policy, with particular reference to decommissioning the UK's nuclear facilities. The Government's helpful summary of the responses to that consultation document 
 pointed out that although all respondents agreed on the need for site strategies covering decommissioning operations, concerns were expressed that options should not be foreclosed and in particular that the relationship between the strategies of the NDA and those of its site operators should be clear and unambiguous. I share some of those concerns, but clause 6 is silent on that point. Have the Government reached a conclusion with regard to those relationships, and at what point in the Committee will we be able to discuss that matter in more detail? 
 I should perhaps declare an interest in relation to subsection (7). Some rather derogatory remarks were made this morning about lawyers who were members of the Committee. I plead guilty to being a member—albeit non-practising—of the Faculty of Advocates, which is why I retain an interest in how Bills passing through the House relate to Scotland as well as England. As you will be aware, Mr. O'Brien, my constituency is almost equidistant between Edinburgh and London; it is ideally situated in that regard. 
 Under subsection (7), the Secretary of State is required to lay a copy of every direction containing a designation before Parliament and to publish it, subject in both cases to the exclusion of any material which in his view, under subsection (9), should be withheld in the interests of national security. I should like to probe the Under-Secretary on that issue. Will directions be debated when laid before Parliament? If so, will they be debated by a statutory instrument Committee of this House, or could they be debated by both Houses? What will be the mechanism for such a debate? We seem to be expending a lot of energy this afternoon, for different reasons. 
 On clause 6(8), I should like to ask the Under-Secretary the same question as has been asked before to see whether it elicits any response or, indeed, a similar response to that of his colleague. I was fortunate enough to be able to question and seek the advice of the Advocate-General for Scotland on this issue when the Committee adjourned before lunch. That was a worthwhile exercise. It is just a pity that we have only five minutes in which to question the Advocate-General and to hold her to account. 
 Subsection (8) states: 
 ''The Scottish Ministers must lay before the Scottish Parliament a copy of every direction which by virtue of section 9 is given jointly by them and the Secretary of State.'' 
However, in my experience, when decisions are taken jointly—for example, in a marriage—someone usually has the upper hand and the last word. I am pleased that my husband is not present on this occasion. Let us transfer that scenario to joint decision making by Scottish Ministers and the Secretary of State. Will the Under- Secretary be good enough to tell us which body and which Minister will have the last word? 
 The most alarming part of clause 6 is subsection (9), which states: 
 ''The Secretary of State may exclude . . . from what he lays before Parliament and publishes under this section . . . anything the publication of which he considers to be against the interests of national security.''
I have not yet been asked to sign the Official Secrets Act, so I will not fall foul of its provisions, but could the Under-Secretary elucidate how strong a test will be applied in that regard? 
 I think that the Under-Secretary will guide me on one last point. I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire,. Having been a humble candidate at Workington and briefly seen the work at Sellafield, I pay enormous tribute to the contribution to the local economy that the plants in west Cumbria make. However, in relation to the designated responsibilities in clause 6, there will obviously be quite a dramatic reduction, through decommissioning, in the processing works in west Cumbria. Has that been noted and have Ministers taken action on it? Which part of the Bill would relate to that?

Desmond Turner: I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary a quick question while we are discussing this clause, which sets out the NDA's duties and responsibilities. In respect of the nuclear liabilities that were publicly created, and given that the NDA will be publicly funded to carry out its role, will he give a brief exposition of the Government's position on what would be the case were there to be a future generation of nuclear power stations that would presumably be privately funded? Would the private developers of nuclear power stations also have to fund privately their nuclear decommissioning liabilities?

Nigel Griffiths: I shall reply to questions on the clause in the order that they were asked. The hon. Member for Vale of York asked about decommissioning policy and consultation. The review is under way, but it has not yet been concluded. The NDA needs to take account of it as the relevant Government policy.
 It is unlikely that the NDA would have a role in MOD sites while there is still a defence interest, but as and when MOD interest in a sites ceases, it would make sense for the clean-up to be secured by the MOD itself. In Scotland and the UK, Ministers must agree that the Secretary of State acts on behalf of Her Majesty's Government in this matter, but the dialogue is very open and healthy between the Scottish Executive and the UK Government. 
 The hon. Lady almost got on to my Christmas card list with her mention of Morningside, which has a keen interest in the nuclear industry. We are grateful for the work being done in Morningside, through which waste from Torness is transported to Sellafield. It passes within a couple of hundred yards of my back door at Newington, and I am pleased that the freight line is kept up to passenger standard to secure safety there. 
 Unusually, the hon. Lady blotted her copybook when she called for more regulations, and for the designated directions to be discussed by the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The documents are technical; they specify what the NDA is being given designated responsibility for, and we do not intend 
 that they should be over-bureaucratised and debated in the way that the hon. Lady suggested. I am keen to have fewer regulations, not more. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) raised an important issue. I shall ensure that he receives a reply, and that copies are sent to other members of the Committee. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 - Additional responsibilities under designating directions

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I will be brief. I am very disappointed with the Under-Secretary's response and, particularly, the news that I will not be on his Christmas card list. I thought recognition of the fact that he was the Member for Morningside would have deserved that.
 Conservative Members recognise the huge importance of scrutinising legislation. When a Bill calls for regulations to be laid before the House, it merely is an opportunity to inform the House and, possibly, to gain support for what the Government are doing. 
 The clause relates to additional responsibilities under designating directions. Subsection (2)(a) refers to ''research facilities'' and paragraph (2)(d) refers to 
''facilities of any description situated in or on such other land.'' 
I understood that the Bill applies only to Crown land. Can the Under-Secretary confirm that all the land to which the clause applies is also Crown land or will there be circumstances in which land owned by other landowners may come into the equation? 
 The Under-Secretary mentioned the transporting of waste from Torness to Sellafield and through his constituency. Will the additional responsibilities under the clause cover such transport? In the responses to the consultation documents, concern was expressed about transport and the difficulties that operators experienced because of the absence of a management policy, particularly for intermediate level waste. Other concerns were expressed about the need for solid waste to be stored on site. 
 Could the Under-Secretary confirm that the additional responsibilities of the NDA will include the storage and transport of waste? One respondent to the Government's consultation exercise proposed that the Scottish Parliament should approve decommissioning policy in Scotland and said that there should be no movement of radioactive waste across the England-Scotland border. Does the Under-Secretary agree with those views or does he think that there should be free movement?

Nigel Griffiths: I refer the hon. Lady back to clauses 6(4)(e) and 8(5)(e), which make it clear that the NDA will have the skills and expertise to manage clean-up
 operations on publicly owned land. Those two clauses allow for private land to be similarly treated when the private sector operator concerned consents. It is inconceivable that the operator would not consent. Clause 7(2) limits the land and facilities under consideration to that owned or occupied by the person with control of a principal nuclear site. That sets the extent of the powers.
 In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown, the clean-up of private sector nuclear sites is the financial responsibility of the operator concerned. It is possible for the NDA to be given responsibility for securing the clean-up of private sector sites, but the costs would continue to be borne by the private sector itself. 
 Finally, I can tell the hon. Member for Vale of York that it would not be our intention to see the nuclear waste going to the world-class facility at Sellafield from the Scottish stations to be held up at either Carstairs or the border while securing certification. Only someone who had not thought through the consequences of this serious matter would put forward such a proposal. 
 As far as I know, there is no proposal for Scotland to have an independent facility for safely disposing of expended nuclear fuel. There is common agreement on that among the Scottish Executive, the Government and anyone with a sensible point of view. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 - Supplemental provisions of designating directions

Norman Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 84, in
clause 8, page 6, line 14, leave out 'may' and insert 'will'.

Bill O'Brien: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
 No. 85, in 
clause 8, page 6, line 15, at end insert 
 'commensurate with an estimate of the financial liability being adopted by the NDA'. 
No. 116, in 
clause 13, page 11, line 35, leave out 'may' and insert 'will'. 
No. 117, in 
clause 13, page 11, line 36, at end insert 
 'commensurate with an estimate of the financial liability being adopted by the NDA'. 
No. 118, in 
clause 13, page 11, line 41, leave out subsection (4). 
No. 99, in 
clause 24, page 22, line 42, at end insert— 
 '(4A) In the case of a designated installation, site or facility where the person in control is not one contained in subsection (2), the NDA shall carry out an assessment of the ability of the person in control to cover the costs of the decommissioning and clean-up work, which the NDA considers necessary due to nuclear 
contamination caused by the activities of that company, and present such an analysis to the Secretary of State, and the NDA, following consultation with the Secretary of State, shall then determine how the costs of the decommissioning and clean-up work shall be covered.'.

Norman Baker: We have established that the NDA can take responsibility for the liabilities that arise from British Energy—that has become clear from our discussion on the group of amendments that included amendment No. 78. In response to an intervention from my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown, the Under-Secretary said that the private sector would bear the costs of any clean-up. However, he said to me that we must give the NDA power to deal with the private sector because the Government are the body of last resort in the interests of security and the environment. We would all agree with that, so there is a conflict between the last-resort position that the Under-Secretary described to me and the categorical assurance that he gave to the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown.
 Happily, the amendments in this group would help the Under-Secretary. Clause 8(2) refers to: 
 ''A direction giving the NDA responsibilities in relation to an installation'', 
including one in which 
''the NDA is to have a financial responsibility under section 24''. 
Under those circumstances, the direction ''may''—not will— 
''require the person with control of the installation, site or facility''— 
that could be British Energy or another private sector operator— 
''to make payments to the Secretary of State.'' 
If the Under-Secretary genuinely intends the private sector to bear the costs of the clean-up, I can help him because amendment No. 84 would replace ''may'' with ''will''. That would absolutely clarify the matter. In addition to that, amendment No. 85 would add the phrase 
''commensurate with an estimate of the financial liability being adopted by the NDA'', 
which is exactly what the Under-Secretary is saying.

Michael Weir: Is there not a problem that British Energy has had to be bailed out to the tune of many millions of pounds because it is uneconomic? What guarantee do we have that any future private sector operator will be able to make payments, unless there are segregated funds from the outset? Are we not giving out the ultimate blank cheque? The Government or the NDA will have to pick up the bill if any private operator is in the same position as British Energy was before the Government pledged money to it.

Norman Baker: That is exactly right. The Under-Secretary giveth and the Under-Secretary taketh away, but recently he has been doing more giving than taking away in the nuclear industry. An amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown dealt with segregated funds but it was not selected. I hope that we can return to that issue later because we want financial clarity; we do not want smudges and
 blurred lines involving billions of pounds of public money, which is the situation that the Under-Secretary is creating through this Bill.
 This is the ultimate blank-cheque clause. It tells a private sector operator, ''Don't worry about it. The Government are the body of last resort. If we get into trouble they will bail us out, as they have done in the past, and as they continue to do.'' The facilities that were made available to British Energy by the Department of Trade and Industry are still being made available. A huge amount has been made available in the past 12 months on that basis, and there is no guarantee in the clause that that situation will not arise again. 
 Indeed, clause 8 explicitly allows that to happen. Far from drawing a line under the use of public money to bail out the nuclear industry, which has happened so often, and starting with a clean sheet of paper, which I thought was going to happen under the Bill, we are perpetuating that practice. An opportunity is being provided for the private sector to have the Government contribute to its costs. 
 The hon. Member for Tewkesbury and his hon. Friends think that nuclear power has a future. If it does, I think that they are honest enough to say that it should wash its own face, and be clear on its financial contribution and accountability. That is not what the clause provides for. My amendments would prevent the taxpayer from effectively handing over more cash to British Energy.

Laurence Robertson: I want to speak briefly in support of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Lewes, and in support of my amendment No. 99. It relates to clause 24, which covers the financial responsibilities of the NDA.
 It is obvious to the Committee, although I will restate it, that I do not come from the same position as the hon. Member for Lewes with respect to the nuclear industry. It has made a valuable contribution and there remains one for it to make in the future. However, I agree with him that it needs to be economic. I agree, too, with what I think he is getting at in his amendments. Certainly, amendment No. 99 is intended to ensure that where there is a liability—let us say that British Energy has a liability for waste, clean-up and decommissioning—there should be an obligation, as far as possible, to deal with that liability. 
 A conflict seemed to arise in discussion earlier. The Under-Secretary appeared, when I challenged him about the EU position, to be saying that the Government were prepared to bail out—in the words of the hon. Member for Lewes—the private sector in the nuclear industry. Otherwise, why were we discussing whether that would be unfair state aid? The Under-Secretary seemed to be willing that that should happen. Perhaps in some circumstances it might be necessary. However, it now seems that we are being told that it will not happen, but that it will be up to the licensee, the operator of the site, to pay. We need clarification. I thought so when I first read the Bill and, after the debate, I am even more convinced of it. Therefore I am happy to support the amendment.

Nigel Griffiths: I am resisting the amendments—although I appreciate the clarity with which hon. Members have put very straightforward cases—because they would require private sector operators, as a matter of statute, in all cases to meet the costs of discharging their nuclear liabilities. We are clear about one thing: private sector operators must bear the costs of clean-up and should provide for them, for instance by using segregated funds. The question is what should happen if the operator fails—if the ''polluter pays'' principle fails, as it sometimes does in the real world. Circumstances can arise in which private sector operators are unable to meet their liabilities. British Energy provides a current example.
 The Government are faced in those circumstances with a choice between leaving such an undertaking to founder and possibly collapse, or coming to its assistance for the good of our communities and of society. When it comes to discharging nuclear liabilities, there is no real choice: a responsible Government bear the ultimate responsibility for ensuring public safety. 
 What we have here is a Government proposal embedded in the Bill that takes that responsibility in full, compared with amendments that I fear would lead us down the road of irresponsibility. The irony is not lost on me, as the Under-Secretary with responsibility for nuclear decommissioning elsewhere. We have set up a half a billion pound fund, which is currently helping to dismantle Russian nuclear submarine facilities. I was in Archangel earlier this year to see how that was proceeding. We have a fund that is helping another nation meet the responsibilities that we must all meet as a world community, yet we are being asked here to accept amendments that would close the door on that in this country. That is why I reject them. 
 The clean-up of private sector nuclear sites is the responsibility of the operator concerned, so where the NDA is to be given responsibility for a private sector site, we would expect it to charge for that clean-up. Any decision to support a private sector operator in consideration of the Government's ultimate responsibility for the safe and secure clean-up of nuclear sites would be a matter for Government, not for the NDA. Such support, as in the case of BE, would, as I have said, be likely to be subject to state aid approval by the European Commission. I do not think that we can be clearer on the matter, and I hope that, having heard the consequences of the amendments, no responsible hon. Member or political party would want to walk away and leave clean-ups to the private sector in all circumstances. That is why I ask for the amendments to be withdrawn.

Laurence Robertson: I largely agree with the Under-Secretary, who made his case reasonably and persuasively. However, I point out to him that my amendment No. 99 is a little more accommodating than those tabled by the Liberal Democrats—although I support those too. My amendment took a slightly different line, which is why it relates to a different clause.
 Clause 24 appears to suggest that the NDA cannot charge the private sector. That was my reading of it, which is why I tabled amendment No. 99, which says that 
''the NDA shall carry out an assessment of the ability of the person in control to cover the costs of the decommissioning and clean-up work, which the NDA considers necessary''. 
It goes on to say that the NDA 
''following consultation with the Secretary of State, shall then determine how the costs of the decommissioning and clean-up work shall be covered.'' 
So my amendment would not have been in conflict with what the Under-Secretary very reasonably said. However, I accept his persuasive arguments, and I shall not push the matter to a vote, although it would not necessarily have been detrimental to the environment and public safety.

Norman Baker: I follow the hon. Member for Tewkesbury and have equal sympathy with the point that he has just made and with amendment No. 99 in his name. The Under-Secretary's main argument against the amendments—that there is no provision for the Government to be the body of last resort—has some validity and I concede that he has a case. It is certainly the case that if a nuclear company went bankrupt and there were a problem, the state would have to intervene for environmental health reasons. That underlines the costs of the industry over generations to the public purse. However, the clause does not specify that the payment will not be required only under such circumstances. In fact, the clause is much looser than that and simply says that a direction
''may require the person with control . . . to make payments''. 
 We have heard the Minister's interpretation of that. Most people would agree that the state should intervene when an installation or a company goes bankrupt, but that is not what happened with British Energy in the last 12 months or so. He has referred to that case, in which the Government provided a substantial, fat lifeline to prevent the market from reaching the logical conclusion—British Energy should have gone bankrupt in the last 12 to 24 months. Had the NDA existed then, it could have stepped in and either run those stations, because the Government would have given it the power to be generator, or decommissioned them. 
 Instead, the Minister's policy is to allow private sector companies with nuclear generation capacity to exist. The Government have endorsed that philosophical decision, which was originally a Conservative policy. If the private sector is involved in the nuclear industry, however, surely it should take the risks. It is difficult to justify allowing the industry to receive the benefits of privatisation—money for shareholders and so on—but letting the risk remain with the state. That is the position the Government have constructed. 
 If the Minister proposes an amendment on Report that says that the requirement to pay on such directions will be made in all circumstances except 
 when the nuclear company in question has gone bankrupt—at which point the state must intervene for public health and environmental reasons—I will be sympathetic. I am afraid, however, that the clause's wording is loose and can be interpreted much more generously. Such has been demonstrated by what the Government have been prepared to do in the last 24 months. 
 Clause 8 is a blank-cheque clause. It is an opportunity for more state aid and for any nuclear company to hold a pistol to the Government's head and say, ''We are in financial trouble—we're going down the plughole unless you come up with some more money.'' Government Members ought to be aware that they will be voting for more state aid for British Energy or private sector nuclear companies. 
 The Minister has said that there is a requirement for a last-gasp body of last resort—the Government—in the event of a company going bankrupt. For that reason alone, I will not press the amendment to a vote. However, I shall table an amendment on Report that frames the provisions in such terms as to allow only failure to pay in the event of a bankruptcy and no other circumstances. If the Minister is true to his word, he will support it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Laurence Robertson: In a sense, Mr. O'Brien, we have already discussed amendments Nos. 53 and 54. Amendment No. 54 refers to the revocation of a direction, but as I could not persuade the Committee to put directions before Parliament, I do not suppose that I am likely to gain support for putting the revocation of a direction before Parliament. Therefore, I do not wish to move amendment No. 53.
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: The Minister will be aware that the tone of responses to the Government's consultation was overwhelmingly welcoming on the issue of funding arrangements for the NDA. However, two responses expressed concern about whether British Energy could afford to make its increased payments to the nuclear liabilities fund. How have the Government satisfied themselves that British Energy will be able to do so? The matter was alluded to when the hon. Member for Lewes commented on a company going bankrupt. Obviously, the company would have a serious concern.
 To be frank, the clause, not having been amended, is not the most elegant or tidy. Will the Minister explain how it will work? Will it mean that work will be commenced only so far as funds are available to pay for it? Will it mean that an up-front payment will have to be made before the work starts or merely that a direction will require appropriate ongoing charges to be imposed by the NDA? Some guidance would be helpful. If authorisation is given for the work to start, would it proceed only to a predetermined interim stage 
 or could it all be concluded? I have read the responses to the Government consultation, and some real concerns were expressed. 
 The clause will empower the Secretary of State to make a number of directions. Every time we call for such directions to be scrutinised, we are accused of imposing a tier of regulation, but the fact that we privatised the energy sector and utilities should speak for itself. Will the Minister satisfy the Committee as to why, if the directions are in order, the Government are so afraid of parliamentary scrutiny? Is it not a concept to which the Government are wedded?

Nigel Griffiths: I want to make a couple of points in response to the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Lewes. We are faced with a choice: no state aid or Government intervention and funding in the public interest when they are needed. If that is the defining issue, we stand by the latter.
 Much mention has been made of bankruptcy, and if the Government need to step in, doing so early to prevent a bankruptcy, as has been the case with British Energy, may be more cost-effective than picking up the pieces afterwards. This is not a case of, ''Where there is blame, there is a claim.'' A claim against a bankrupt company would be of little comfort to the public, the work force and all others who are concerned with public safety.

Norman Baker: The Minister talks about the downsides of bankruptcy, but, as we have discussed, does he not accept that the Bill gives the NDA the power to operate nuclear stations? Therefore, there need be no effect on the work force, safety or security? Matters could carry on as normal; the only difference would be that we would not be paying out to shareholders.

Nigel Griffiths: The question is, which is the best authority to maintain and run the specific site? I put it to the hon. Gentleman that there may have been a recent change of management, those responsible for the mistakes may have gone and the new team would be the best people to manage the facility, although, after NDA vetting, they may require financial support to do it. His amendments and his rejection of the clause would close the door on that, which is an important difference between us.
 The hon. Gentleman is right, through the amendments he has tabled, to probe the Government on the exact meaning of the Bill, but he has clearly stated that he does not want any state aid to be allocated to the maintenance of such facilities. I do not know whether he has a response to my point: a new and highly experienced management, who have perhaps run another nuclear facility well, might be brought in by the company. 
 If the hon. Gentleman is arguing that in such a situation there is a clear choice between the NDA—a public body—running the organisation or public money going to a private sector organisation, even if that organisation has a good, proven track record, that exposes weaknesses in the amendments he tabled, albeit in good faith.

Norman Baker: The Minister mentions a track record, which reminds me of Railtrack. Railtrack was a private sector company that the Government could not afford to allow to go bankrupt because it was delivering an essential public service—railways—so Railtrack repeatedly came back to ask for more public money.
 Railtrack said that it had got everything sorted out and that the management had improved, which is what the Minister says, but in the end the Government had to pull the plug and say, ''No more.'' I suggest that as long as he allows that argument to be made by the nuclear industry—by private companies such as British Energy—those companies will keep coming back for more money. At some point, however, the Government will again have to say, ''No more,'' and hand the industry over to the NDA, as Railtrack went to Network Rail.

Nigel Griffiths: There is an implication in what the hon. Gentleman says that there is some wonderful pool of experts available on tap who can come in and sort out the problems of the industry. In fact, although such expertise resides in the UK as much as anywhere else in the world, it resides in a core of key people. One cannot just advertise in the local jobcentre for people to come and take over such facilities.
 It is therefore important that the clause stand part of the Bill, on the basis of the arguments that we have advanced. I recognise the sincerity with which the amendments were introduced, especially amendment No. 99, which I will briefly discuss. 
 That amendment would leave it to the NDA to determine how the costs of decommissioning and clean-up work should be covered, but I cannot support the removal of that responsibility from the Secretary of State. I do not think that a convincing case has been made for transferring those responsibilities to the NDA. Those functions should be kept clear and separate.

Laurence Robertson: The Minister refers to the amendment rather selectively. It states that the NDA shall
''present . . . an analysis to the Secretary of State, and the NDA, following consultation with the Secretary of State, shall . . . determine how the costs of the decommissioning and clean-up work shall be covered.'' 
Without that amendment, and the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Lewes, the NDA—in other words, the taxpayer—could pick up the entire bill. I do not understand the Minister's objection to amendment No. 99.

Nigel Griffiths: I do not wish to misrepresent the purpose of the amendment—members of the Committee have a copy of it—nor will I pick through it from a legal point of view. I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman about the wording, but I was trying to focus on the outcome. The difference between us is that we believe that the Secretary of State, who is accountable to Parliament, should take the ultimate decision, rather than the NDA, no matter how valid the consultation with the Secretary of State may be.

Laurence Robertson: The Under-Secretary is extremely courteous in giving way. He is expressing great sympathy for amendment No. 99, although he cannot agree with all of it. Will he therefore reconsider it with a view to accepting a slightly amended version on Report?

Nigel Griffiths: If the hon. Gentleman wishes the amendment to retain the last three sentences, which transfer the responsibility from the Secretary of State to the NDA, I will not be able to reconsider it. However, when we agree with them, my hon. Friend and I will look closely and sympathetically at all the amendments on Report.

Laurence Robertson: My point was not about leaving in those three sentences. It may be that we agree that the Secretary of State should have the ultimate responsibility, but the more important part of the amendment states that the NDA shall carry out an
''assessment of the ability of the person in control'' 
to pay for it. That is what I am getting at. Would the Under-Secretary consider accepting that point on Report?

Nigel Griffiths: We will accept any amendment that significantly improves the Bill.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 - Designations relating to scotland

Norman Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 87, in
clause 9, page 7, line 17, at end insert
'provided that this shall not be classified as intermediate-level-level waste or high-level waste'.
 In the light of the Under-Secretary's last remark, I look forward to a positive response to my amendment. First, I can tell the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire, who is keen on this provision, that this is a probing amendment. It is an excuse to discuss a wider issue, but I hope that it is in order, Mr. O'Brien. 
 The hon. Member for Angus may be disappointed to know that my special interest is not in ensuring that radioactive waste is not disposed of in Scotland, although with my Aberdonian birthright I have a passing interest in that. I have tabled the amendment so that I can concentrate on intermediate-level and higher-level waste, and tease out from the Under-Secretary what is the delineation between the NDA and Nirex. I mentioned that point to the Energy Minister, but little clarity was forthcoming. 
 I want to clarify the matter because there is uncertainty about state aid, and about where Nirex fits in. We know from ministerial comments that have been reported in the press, which is always entirely accurate—The Observer, anyway—that there have been big clashes between the Secretary of State for 
 Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs over the future and the role of Nirex. 
 The amendment would provide that disposal would not take place if it involved intermediate-level or higher-level waste. The point is whether the NDA will have the ability, or the authority if the Government have their way, to deal with the disposal of intermediate-level or higher-level waste. Nirex is charged with dealing with intermediate-level waste; that is its job. It is therefore developing a long-term strategy for the Government. Is that strategy to be undermined or overruled by the Bill? 
 This morning, the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services said that there would be some responsibility for the NDA in respect of intermediate-level and higher-level waste, but at what point does that responsibility stop and Nirex's responsibility begin? 
 Under clause 6(1)(d), the NDA will have responsibility for disposing of hazardous material. Many of us thought that that was Nirex's responsibility. The amendment would confirm the situation that I understand to be the case—that Nirex will deal with the disposal of intermediate-level and higher-level waste, and that the NDA can dispose of low and very low-level waste. If that is different from what the Government anticipate, I should be grateful to hear it. However, we certainly need clarification of the relative roles of the NDA and Nirex. 
 It would be helpful if the Under-Secretary could tell us what has happened to Nirex. We had a statement from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs last July. Since then, there has been a battle royal between the DTI and DEFRA. We have not yet had a statement on where that is going. Will the Under-Secretary clarify that while dealing with the other issues?

Richard Page: When I read the amendment, I experienced the puzzlement of trying to get into the mind of the Liberal Democrats, and I have to say that I failed. I came to the conclusion that if it was anything other than a wrecking amendment—in which case all became clear—I was in difficulty. However, the hon. Member for Lewes said that it was a probing amendment, so I feel a warm glow come over me. I am with him in spirit on that. I sincerely hope that he does not try to press the amendment to a vote, because I think that the whole thing would come off the road at that point.
 The amendment is peculiar in the way in which it is designed to tease out the arguments that the hon. Gentleman asked the Under-Secretary to explain. I understand the requirement to define the relationship between the NDA and Nirex, and the amendment is more interesting because he has chosen to try to elucidate that information. However, the people who read these debates will wonder about the Liberal Democrats' moves to try to exclude Scotland from any form of nuclear activity. That would gain an enormous number of votes in some areas, but lose them in others. I see no reason why Scotland should be in the discriminatory position of being a nuclear-free zone. 
 Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury mentioned his away day to Finland. It is building a nuclear power station on a great chunk of granite. Scotland is just a lump of granite really, as the hon. Member for Angus—my hon. Friend—would admit. There are a few bits of water as well, but it is a great chunk of granite.

Michael Weir: The hon. Gentleman obviously has not been to Scotland in a long time. There is a lot more in Scotland than granite. In fact, Angus is on sandstone, which is probably the most inappropriate material for a nuclear dump that I can think of. I would not argue that all nuclear waste generated in Scotland should be carted furth of Scotland, but if he is proposing a new nuclear dump anywhere in Scotland, he will find very great opposition to that proposal.

Richard Page: I have to say to the hon. Gentleman—he was my hon. Friend, but he has gone down a grade—that I was in Scotland last year. I took my dearly beloved, who is my wife as well, on an away day to celebrate one of our many wedding anniversaries. We had a lovely time going through what I have to say is the granite of Scotland. I am unaware of the sandstone of Angus, but if he would like a nuclear dump in Angus, that will be fine.
 I shall return to the issue of Finland, because I could see in your eyes, Mr. O'Brien, that you were going to call me to order, and rightly so. I hope that no other hon. Member will try to distract me with irrelevances. However, Finland is working away to build its nuclear power station on granite. It is digging a spiral road to a depository at the bottom, so that all the nuclear waste goes down, underneath the power station. When the power station comes to be decommissioned, it will all be dismantled and put down into the centre of the granite. That will be environmentally safe and environmentally friendly. 
 As I said earlier, Nirex was about to announce a high-level waste depository in Cumbria, but the geological surveys indicated that the rocks there were not secure. There were fissures and faults in them, so the proposal was rejected in 1997. I am disappointed that the Liberal Democrats produce the fact that Scotland, with all the right geological aspects attributes to have a depository, would want, on the face of it, to opt out of that opportunity. As the hon. Member for Lewes said, this is a probing amendment, and it will be a challenge to the Under-Secretary to pull together his brief and answer the question. 
 Now that the Under-Secretary has stopped writing, he is obviously up to speed and is able to answer the question. I say that so that I can get back in his favour; he rejected the last set of amendments and gave me the brush-off, whereas I was his dear friend with the previous set of amendments. I hope that I am back in favour again, and should be interested to know how this probing amendment will demonstrate the relationship between the NDA and Nirex, which is an important one if we are going to move our nuclear installations forward to the future and, in particular, can make provision for their disposal.

Nigel Griffiths: I have written a Christmas card with a second-class stamp. I welcome the opportunity to respond to the probing amendment and to make it clear that the future responsibilities for intermediate and high-level waste are under active consideration. That includes decisions on the future of Nirex. The Bill allows the NDA to play a role in the disposal of all radioactive waste. It can construct and operate disposal facilities, and it makes sense to keep that option open until the policy consideration is complete. I welcome the chance that the probing amendment gives me to spell out how the Government are tackling that issue.

Norman Baker: I should have thought that, given time that the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire was extremely generous in giving the Under-Secretary to allow him to scribble his reply, we would have received a better answer than that.
 The Under-Secretary has now admitted that there is no clear role for Nirex established in his mind, and no clear role for the NDA, although there will be some reserve ministerial powers. Nirex was going to be sorted out on 16 July 2003, when the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs made her announcement, and the press release said: 
 ''Margaret Beckett announces way forward on radioactive waste management''. 
We are now wondering, a year later, what the way forward is. We know, however, that we are being asked to pass a Bill with all its provisions, without knowing the answer to the central question on the relationship between the NDA and Nirex. The more we consider this shiny new Bill, which was presented to us in glistening form on day one, the more the shine is wearing off. It is looking rather tarnished on a range of issues. There are more questions than answers in this Bill: this debate on the NDA and Nirex has provided us with another. 
 The Under-Secretary owes it to the Committee—and the House, on Report— to make a clear statement about what exactly is happening with Nirex, and how it will relate to the NDA. It would be an insult to Parliament if we were expected to pass the Bill and then have a ministerial announcement two weeks later stating the position. None the less, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I wish to raise, in greater depth than I did previously, some small points on the relationship between the Bill and the way in which it will apply in England and Scotland. There has been talk about away-days to Finland. My next confession is that I am half-Danish and that on my annual holiday visits to Copenhagen, which was the family home in latter years, it has come as some surprise to see that the Swedes have positioned their primary nuclear plant
 opposite the main centre of population and the capital of Denmark—bang opposite Copenhagen. I hope that the Committee will take note of that.
 I hope that the Under-Secretary might have time to consider my remarks a little more fully than in the replies that he gave in other clause stand part debates. Subsection (2) draws a distinction, apparently not made elsewhere in the Bill, between licensable sites and other principal nuclear sites. It would be helpful for the Committee to know why that distinction has been made known just for the purpose of this clause. 
 I understand that directions for sites that are not licensable will be given jointly by the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers. The Under-Secretary will have had time to reflect on the matter. I think that he has had a lapse of memory, which I am sure he will not readily be accused of, and has failed to respond to the point in earlier debates this afternoon. In the event of a joint decision when such sites are not licensable, who will have the last word? Is the Under-Secretary concerned that there may be discrepancies in the application of the Bill between Scotland and England? 
 This morning, the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services told us that one of the reasons that the Bill was to be welcomed was that it would introduce an element of competition between sites. Clearly, the clause has unique application in that regard. I am sure that the Committee will find it extremely helpful if the Under-Secretary could elaborate on why the Government appear to have moved away from the reserved matters. The little book tells us about all matters relating to regulation under the Scotland Act 1998—the Under-Secretary was not here for much of this morning, so I draw his attention to the little book ''Regulating Public Utilities: A Constitutional Approach'', written by Cosmo Graham, professor of law at the university of Leicester. It is available—or would be had I not borrowed it—in the House of Commons Library. However, I am sure that the Under-Secretary has the whole Department and its literature at his disposal. The little book says that all matters of regulation are clearly set out in the Scotland Act 1998, except waste, as reserved matters and are therefore 
''outside the competence of the Scottish Parliament''.
 I recall that I made my maiden speech on the Committee stage of the Scotland Bill, as it was then, and this is a matter in which I have had considerable interest. I think that there might be some confusion among members of the Committee—I could certainly be confused if the Under-Secretary does not satisfy me—and the wider public because the electricity provisions of section 3 of the Electricity Act 1989, as they have been applied, are clearly devolved. It is incumbent on the Under-Secretary to set out clearly before the Committee why these are no longer reserved matters but are to enjoy joint decision making. 
 Will such joint decisions be debatable, and if so in which forum? If an appeal were made against one of the decisions, under which authority or jurisdiction would the appeal take place? Presumably, the appeal 
 would take place before the Scottish courts, but my reading of the Bill does not elucidate that. Why does subsection (2) draw the distinction, which is not made elsewhere in the Bill, between licensable sites and other principal sites? In subsection 3(c), the Secretary of State, or the Scottish Minister is empowered to give the NDA 
''responsibilities for the operation in or on a licensable site in Scotland of a facility for the storage of hazardous material''. 
 What specifically is meant by hazardous?

Nigel Griffiths: My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services dealt extensively and clearly with section 63 of the Scotland Act this morning and spelled out the division in responsibilities. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Vale of York for giving me the opportunity to answer her questions.
 The distinction between licensable sites and other principal nuclear sites is to reflect the extent of the devolution settlement, which reserved matters relating to licensed nuclear sites. The Bill uses the concept of a principal nuclear site to ensure that sites requiring substantive decommissioning and clean-up work, but for which a nuclear site licence was not required—the fusion reactor at Culham in England is the only present example—are covered by the full range of duties and powers of the operator and the NDA. Only the operation of licensed sites is a reserved matter. 
 Our colleagues in the Scottish Executive find the arrangements acceptable. Clause 9 has been the subject of extensive discussion with the Executive to ensure that it properly reflects the devolved responsibilities of Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Parliament. Scottish Ministers are consulted, but that does not amount to a right to veto, although the process allows for the concerns of Scottish Ministers to be taken into account. 
 Scottish Ministers will have powers of joint decision and approval when the activities of the NDA relate to a devolved matter. If the activity relates to a devolved but also reserved matter, such as the non-processing, treatment and storage of radioactive waste on licensed or Crown sites, Scottish Ministers will have a right to be consulted. They will also be consulted on appointments by the Secretary of State to the NDA under clause 5. 
 The Bill reflects discussions between the UK Government and the Scottish Executive on the appropriate level of involvement of Scottish Ministers. The complicated nature of the provisions results from the way in which the various responsibilities of the NDA will be handled under the devolved settlement. In principle, sites that are licensable under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 and Crown sites are reserved. Environmental protection and the regulation of the disposal of radioactive waste are, in principle, devolved.

Anne McIntosh: I am listening to the Under-Secretary extremely carefully, but I am becoming more confused. I fear that an action will be brought against one of the decisions taken under the clause. Have the Department or the Under-Secretary thought about
 which jurisdiction would hear the case? He talks of not wanting regulation and scrutiny of directions to hold up matters in the House, but a court case would take substantially longer than getting it right in Committee.

Nigel Griffiths: I am advised that if the hypothetical became reality and there were to be such a court case, the dialogue between the Scottish and English courts would ensure that the authority with jurisdiction over the matter would respond robustly. There is a good dialogue between the legal authorities of the Scottish Executive and those in Whitehall. I am advised that this issue, which hon. Members have rightly highlighted, is not the problem they believe it to be.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 - Supplemental functions

Norman Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 88, in
clause 10, page 8, line 4, at end insert
'except that no monies shall be passed to those responsible for generating radioactive material'.
 I am happy to say that this is another probing amendment, which should gladden the heart of the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire. I seek to unravel the financial relationship between the NDA and the private sector of the nuclear industry. I hope to get a fuller answer from the Under-Secretary than with my previous probing amendment. I must say that having one's probing amendments responded to in that way does not encourage one to table any more. 
 The amendment would amend the provision giving the NDA the function, so far as it thinks it appropriate, to promote 
''the carrying out of research by others into those matters''— 
those matters being the ''decommissioning of nuclear installations'', the ''cleaning-up of nuclear sites'' and so on. I seek to clarify whether the Government envisage a situation in which the NDA would pass money to British Energy or another private sector operator pursuant to that function. 
 If, as the Under-Secretary has stated, British Energy is responsible for its own clean-up operations, it ought to be dealing with such matters itself rather than relying on the NDA to fund its research. Will private sector operators fund their own responsibilities, or will that be another subsidy from the taxpayer to the private sector in the nuclear industry? If so, what are the constraints and rules? Is it simply a matter for the NDA's discretion? 
 Will the Under-Secretary admit that there is a need to clarify financial propriety between the NDA and the private sector? How does he intend to deal with that? What method will be deployed to ensure that public money is not spent improperly, that there is proper accountability for that money, and that we have the opportunity to follow such matters in the House of Commons and to raise matters of concern? 
 Any arrangement whereby billions of pounds of taxpayers' money is out of our jurisdiction due to commercial confidentiality because contracts have been signed would be intolerable.The hon. Member for Tewkesbury raised a similar issue earlier about billions of pounds that he wanted to be subject to scrutiny, which he rightly put to a vote. 
 This is another example of a situation in which taxpayers' moneys may be handed over to the private sector through the NDA, but in which we may have no way of following what the NDA is doing, or its reason for doing so. 
 Will the Under-Secretary clarify the relationship between the NDA and the private sector in terms of financial propriety, and tell us whether he envisages that the NDA will be empowered to subsidise British Energy for what is its responsibility—the carrying out of research for its own sites for which it has financial responsibility? If he does not clarify this point, I will raise it again in debate on a later clause.

Nigel Griffiths: This is not a probing amendment. It is a wrecking amendment that would severely restrict the NDA's ability to spend money on promoting research carried out by others that is related to its functions.
 I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's view of the world. On the one hand, he picks on an evil group of people who are running every nuclear facility and believes that they should not receive a penny for that, despite the fact that we have to ensure that the products of the nuclear industry are clean and made safe. On the other, he sees a group of academics or researchers—perhaps again found at the jobcentre—who would help to carry out the research that the NDA requires. It is simply not like that, and the amendment reflects that caricature fairly accurately.

Richard Page: I hesitate to intervene on the Minister. Now that I am on his Christmas card list I do not want to be deleted. The hon. Member for Lewes says that this is a probing amendment, from which one gathers that he will not press it to a vote. He would love to know what relationship the NDA is expected to adopt with the other private companies. To what extent will they be commissioned to do various works and how will money pass from one side to the other? Everyone agrees that they have to do this task and that work has to be undertaken and payment made. No one is against that. That gives the Minister a golden opportunity to explain how he sees this operating in practice.

Nigel Griffiths: I welcome that intervention. The hon. Gentleman has clarified a good point that was put by the hon. Member for Lewes, which I will come to shortly.
 The amendment would make it hard for the NDA to promote any research that could help it to do its job more effectively. It would rule out the possibility of the NDA funding research by most current operators and those involved in the nuclear industry, such as BNFL, British Energy and others. That is one of the reasons why we cannot accept the amendment. 
 The Committee is entitled to know how much information would be made public and how that would be done. The Bill already commits the NDA to a published strategy, an annual plan and an annual report. They will all involve extensive consultation, ministerial approval and publication. The budget will be disclosed to Parliament and be available for scrutiny there. No hon. Member or interested party outside will be hampered in scrutinising what is happening. 
 That openness will leave us open to the press releases from the Liberal Democrats and others saying, ''Shock, horror—the NDA has gone to some expert in the industry to help to promote research.'' Well, we heard it here first. I hope that will not come as a shock and nor should it when we are simply ensuring, by resisting amendment No. 88, that the NDA is not hamstrung in its function of promoting research. Nor should Parliament be denied the opportunity, through the annual report and other mechanisms, to see what research is being funded. All that is in the public interest. I hope, with that assurance, that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Norman Baker: As I said, this is a probing amendment. There is no such thing as a wrecking amendment from the Opposition because in this Parliament one would never get through. Such amendments could not possibly wreck anything, even if that was what they were designed to do. Amendments are either probing or making a point that, were the proposal agreed to, would achieve a beneficial effect.
 The Minister is also wrong to represent me as characterising the nuclear industry as a collection of Dr. Nos—he does himself no service there. However, there is a need, to which I shall return, for financial clarity, particularly in this odd arrangement. In many respects, the nuclear industry is like no other. Inevitably, there is a close relationship between the NDA and the nuclear generators, whether they are in the private or the public sector. However, because of that relationship, and because of how the industry is constructed as well as its historical path to the point where it is now, it is particularly important that there should be financial probity, financial clarity and transparency. The Minister was good enough to agree with that point. 
 Earlier amendments that would have created some distance in terms of appointments to the NDA were rejected. It is possible that the NDA will pick up functions from the private sector and that it will hand over money for research to BNFL or British Energy. Such things might be justified individually, and the expertise in the industry should not be neglected—it might be useful in the decommissioning process. Nobody would argue with that. However, we should add those factors together and look at the overall picture in the context of an industry that is peculiar in that there is nothing in this country with which it can be compared. Also, it has an incestuous relationship 
 with the putative NDA and the generators. We should then check what measures are in place to ensure that public money is not improperly committed. 
 The NDA cannot be kept distant from the nuclear generators in the way that, say, the banking ombudsman can from the banking sector. I accept that such relationships are not possible in this case. Given those circumstances, what safeguards are in place? The Minister has spoken of an annual report and other such matters. Those are worth while and unexceptionable, but they do not meet the need. I have drawn attention to the points that I want to make, but the Committee should return to the matter of financial transparency and how it can best be achieved, and to the point about ensuring that moneys allocated for nuclear decommissioning are not spent on propping up the nuclear industry and further generation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Michael Weir: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in
clause 10, page 8, line 11, leave out subsection (2).
 The amendment stands with some that we discussed in relation to clauses 6 and 8, and it relates to further clauses, particularly clause 82. 
 One of the difficulties that I have found with the Bill is that various clauses, although they are not strictly interrelated, point to the fact that we might have new nuclear build and new nuclear generators as a result of the Bill. I mention clause 82 because it gives the NDA powers in relation to generators that have previously been the property of British Energy but have been sold on to a third party. When I raised the matter on Second Reading, the Minister said to me: 
 ''I am delighted to say that my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services will deal with that point when he winds up.''—[Official Report, 10 May 2004; Vol. 421, c. 49.] 
I waited with bated breath all through the wind-ups. Unfortunately, enlightenment came there none; it was not mentioned at all. That leaves us to question where we are in relation to the liabilities of both British Energy and any new nuclear generator. 
 I refer hon. Members to paragraph 80 of the explanatory notes on clause 10, which says: 
 ''The function in subsection (2) is required as a consequence of the restructuring plan for British Energy (BE) under which the Government has given certain undertakings underwriting the cost of decommissioning and clean up of BE sites (subject to approval of the agreement by the European Commission). The intention is that, in order to safeguard the interests of the taxpayer, the NDA should have the capacity to act as the nominee of the Secretary of State under the terms of the agreements with BE and generally to ensure that BE's decommissioning plans and the basis on which it operates its stations and subsequently carries out decommissioning and clean up of its sites are such as to minimise any call on public funds. Subsection (3) enables the Secretary of State to require NDA to meet the costs of such an agreement so that all Government's responsibilities in respect of nuclear clean up can be managed within the same framework.'' 
That raises some interesting questions. It is somewhat hollow to say that the Bill will minimise any call on public funds, as it is clear from earlier debates that the Government are in effect giving a blank cheque for future nuclear decommissioning. 
 The Minister was pressed earlier by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury on the position with the European Commission. Press reports suggest that the Commission will approve the plans, but there is still the question of what happens with any future plans. If I heard correctly, the Minister said that the Government would have to go back to the Commission for further permission under the state aid rules. Will he clarify our exact position with the European Commission and whether there are plans to return to it? 
 The notes refer to ''all Government's responsibilities'', the clear implication being that the Government would take responsibility in any future nuclear build. We heard from the Government about the question of future nuclear build in debates on clauses 6 and 8. The Minister made a good defence of the need for the Government to be an ultimate authority, and I accept that. We cannot allow a nuclear generator to go bust and then walk away from it—that would be untenable. 
 We all accept that there must be a method of dealing with the clean-up of historic and any future nuclear waste. That is why every Committee member has welcomed the NDA—we recognise it is necessary. However, we do not agree on the question of new nuclear build and how it will be dealt with. I put it to the Minister that we should be dealing with historic waste and be sure about how we can move forward before we even consider any new nuclear build. 
 The Minister has told us that the Government must be the clean-up authority of last resort. That is fine, and previous clauses provide that they may require the person with control to pay towards the clean-up costs. However, there seems to have been no indication of a Government attempt to ensure that any new entrant to the nuclear market makes provision so that the clean-up costs can be met. 
 I refer the Under-Secretary to what the Trade and Industry Committee said in its 17th report: 
 ''The White Paper gave an assurance that there would be no direct link between the NDA and new nuclear build. This assurance should be given force through a statement of policy by the DTI that approval of any proposal from the private sector for new nuclear plant would be conditional, amongst other factors, upon the establishment and maintenance of a segregated fund to meet the costs of clean-up at the end of its useful operational life.'' 
Nothing in the Bill enshrines that principle in law. I understand that the DTI has not issued such a statement, although, to be fair, a draft policy statement in the public consultation document on modernising the decommissioning policy states: 
 ''The Government expects''— 
we should note the word ''expects''— 
''that all operators will take the steps necessary to ensure that their decommissioning work is adequately funded. No nuclear projects should be started unless it is clear that sufficient funds will be available to complete decommissioning in a safe and secure way, which represents Best Practicable Environmental Option for the site''. 
I believe that we would all agree with that. 
 The Government say that they expect new entrants into the nuclear market to take the necessary steps to ensure safe decommissioning, but there is no requirement in the Bill to ensure that those steps are taken. That may be because the Bill does not say that there will be new nuclear build. I would oppose any such build, but the clauses that we have discussed in this and other sittings make it clear that such a build is possible. 
 When we discuss spending such vast sums of public money on dealing with British Energy and the clean-up of past nuclear generation, we should make it clear that no new nuclear build should be allowed unless there are segregated funds from the outset to ensure that money is available to clean up the site if anything happens to the new generators, and that it will not fall to the taxpayer to pay for such a clean-up. 
 A new nuclear station may start up; it is unlikely in the current financial circumstances, but things change. At first, all may look rosy, but if we do not ensure that funds are available, there is a risk that a new nuclear generator will believe that the Government will ultimately pick up the tab for a clean-up, because it knows that there is nothing in the Bill to force it to make provision to pay. The Under-Secretary may well say that there is a requirement in the Bill for the generator to pay these costs, but one cannot get blood out of a stone. 
 By its nature, a bankrupt company is a company that has failed. It is unlikely to have any assets other than the station itself. I wonder if that is not part of the reason why the NDA is given the option in other clauses to run such stations, because both Ministers have said that they could earn funds in that way. Ultimately, there is a blank cheque. At the end of the day, these people can walk away if their stations fail and there is no money. A limited company has nothing to go back to. I presume that there are no assets in those stations bar the stations themselves, so the Government, and ultimately the taxpayer, will fund all this. 
 I urge the Under-Secretary to consider this issue. The Government have pledged to bail out British Energy but if we are to make progress, these companies must be required to make due provision, and we must ensure that we do not run into another British Energy-type situation somewhere down the line.

Richard Page: I was not going to intervene on the hon. Gentleman, as he appeared to be reaching the end of his contribution, and it is not my job to sell the Government's position, but I put it to him delicately that he makes it sound as if a nuclear company can start up like some cowboy builder and say, ''We will knock up a nuclear power station down the road, and if it all goes bang, someone else can pick up the tab.'' If a nuclear power station of whatever description is to be built, it must undergo planning and detailed safety checks, and everything that is done must be given Government approval, otherwise the Government will pull the plug on it. As the Government would have
 approved it all the way down the line, surely the situation that the hon. Gentleman describes is a little fanciful?

Bill O'Brien: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman responds, I have been listening carefully to his contribution and it contains a lot of repetition. I therefore ask him to introduce some new material, or to wind up his speech.

Michael Weir: I take that stricture on board, Mr. O'Brien.
 To answer the point from the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire, existing nuclear power stations went through a process of approval, but that did not stop British Energy going bust at the end of the day. He may say that it is unlikely, but it could happen; it could be avoided by amending the Bill.

Nigel Griffiths: Who says that being a member of a Standing Committee is not an intellectual treat?
 The Bill is not about new nuclear build. The NDA is concerned with clean-up arrangements. The Government have made it clear that it is for the market to take decisions on the economic viability of new nuclear build, including clean-up costs. Amendment No. 24 would remove the option to give the NDA the responsibility of acting on the Secretary of State's behalf in respect of agreements with third parties for decommissioning and clean-up activities. If the amendment were to be accepted, the NDA would not be able to act as a potential nominee on the Government's behalf in arrangements with those third parties. It would not change the Government's obligations, as the NDA would still have responsibility for securing the clean-up of public-sector nuclear sites. It will be the most appropriate body to take on the discharge of such Government obligations. 
 Much mention has been made of handouts and bail-outs. I shall share a secret with the Committee. The Chancellor privately may be a most generous man, but he does not like handing out public money to bail out anyone or any organisation. No blank cheques will be coming out of No. 11 at the eleventh hour under the present Chancellor. The notion that the NDA is a conduit of limitless public funds to the nuclear industry, with the Chancellor taking no interest in it, is ludicrous. Together with the safeguards that I have already outlined—the strategy, the annual plan and the annual report—that arrangement will serve us best. What more does the hon. Gentleman want?

Norman Baker: This may be a rhetorical question. I am sure that the Chancellor is a canny man, which is why he wants the money being frittered away on the nuclear industry to be recouped if possible. He wants reprocessing as it gives an income stream.
 The Under-Secretary says that the NDA is predominantly about decommissioning. That is its function, but at some point—this is allowing for Greenpeace—it might want the option to build and operate a certain type of nuclear power station, perhaps a plutonium-burning station, to dispose of part of the UK's plutonium stock pile. That would deal with the waste. Is not that a possible outcome for the NDA, and does it not have the power to do that if it wishes?

Nigel Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman sets up so many Aunt Sallies that it is difficult to know where to start. I believe that the pro-nuclear and the anti-nuclear lobbies agree that the disposal of nuclear waste is a priority, and that we need a 21st century agency to handle that, and to do so with the confidence of Parliament and the public. The NDA is the agency to do that. Removing the option to give the NDA the responsibility to act on behalf of the Secretary of State, as amendment No. 24 would do, is not what people on either side of the nuclear divide want to promote; except, perhaps, the hon. Gentleman. I have already emphasised that the NDA cannot construct and operate a new nuclear generating station. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's question.
 I hope also that I have persuaded the hon. Member for Angus to withdraw the amendment.

Michael Weir: Frankly, I am not convinced by the Under-Secretary's arguments. Throughout our debates, we have seen that there is a possibility of such things happening. The Under-Secretary, in his own inimitable way, simply bats them aside, as his colleague did. People have real concerns about the matter. I shall not press the amendment to a Division, but there are serious concerns and he should think about how to deal with them. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Further consideration adjourned.—[Charlotte Atkins.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Five o'clock until Thursday 27 May at five minutes to Nine o'clock. 
O'Brien, Mr. Bill ( 
 Chairman 
 Atkins, Charlotte 
 Baker, Norman 
 Challen, Mr. 
 Griffiths, Nigel 
 Key, Mr. 
 MacDonald, Mr. 
 McIntosh, Miss 
 Murphy, Mr. Denis 
 Page, Mr. 
 Robertson, Mr. Laurence 
 Ruffley, Mr. 
 Stewart, Ian 
 Timms, Mr. 
 Tipping, Paddy 
 Turner, Dr. Desmond 
 Walley, Joan 
 Weir, Mr. 
 White, Brian 
 Whitehead, Dr.